Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 66 - 72 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 İndeks Tarihi: 24-05-2022
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis
Öz: Objective: Depressive symptoms harm the quality of life, with a higher prevalence in patients with rheumatological diseases. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) used for depression evaluation in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been validated in Turkish. However, the Turkish version of PHQ-8, a shorter form of PHQ-9, has not been validated. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of PHQ-8 in Turkish patients with SSc. Methods: Permission was obtained from the authors who developed the original scale. The testing procedure for translation and cultural adaptation was carried out according to the following steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back-translation/backtranslation review, harmonization, finalization, and proofreading. Patients’ demographic parameters, comorbidities, education levels, organ involvement, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ), Short form36 (SF-36), and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) results were recorded. Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency were evaluated in 43 patients with SSc. Results: Despite some linguistic changes, the questionnaire had satisfactory content validity. There were moderate-to-strong correlations between the Turkish version of PHQ-8 and SHAQ consisting of visual analog scale (rs=0.6 to 0.7) and HAQ disability (rs=0.5), the subscales of SF-36 (rs=0.6 to 0.8), and MAF (rs=0.7). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the questionnaire was 0.98, with corrected item-to-total correlations of >0.40, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.947 for the total score (Intraclass correlation coefficient=0.947, 95% confidence interval, 0.817-0.985). Conclusion: The Turkish version of PHQ-8 could be used to evaluate patients with SSc with satisfactory construct validity and sufficient reliability.
Anahtar Kelime: Hasta Sağlığı Anketi-8’in Türkçe versiyonunun sistemik sklerozlu hastalar için geçerlik ve güvenilirliği
Öz: Amaç: Depresif belirtiler yaşam kalitesine zarar verir ve romatolojik hastalığı olan hastalarda daha sık görülür. Sistemik sklerozlu (SSc) hastalarda depresyon değerlendirmesi için kullanılan Hasta Sağlığı Anketi-9’un (PHQ-9) Türkçe validasyonu yapılmıştır. Ancak, PHQ-9’un daha kısa bir formu olan PHQ-8’in Türkçe versiyonu doğrulanmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, SSc’li Türk hastalarda PHQ-8’in güvenilirliğinin ve geçerliliğinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Yöntem: Orijinal ölçeği geliştiren yazarlardan izin alınmıştır. Çeviri ve kültürel adaptasyon için test prosedürü şu adımlara göre gerçekleştirilmiştir: Hazırlık, ileri çeviri, mutabakat, geri çeviri/geri çeviri incelemesi, uyumlaştırma, sonuçlandırma ve düzeltme okumasıdır. Hastaların demografik parametreleri, komorbiditeleri, eğitim düzeyleri, organ tutulumu, Sağlık Değerlendirme Anketi (HAQ), Skleroderma Sağlık Değerlendirme Anketi (SHAQ), Kısa form-36 (SF-36) ve Çok Boyutlu Yorgunluk Değerlendirmesi (MAF) sonuçları kaydedildi. SSc’li 43 hastada geçerlilik, test-tekrar test güvenilirliği ve iç tutarlılık değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Bazı dilsel değişikliklere rağmen, anket tatmin edici bir içerik geçerliliğine sahipti. PHQ-8’in Türkçe versiyonu ile SF-36’nın alt ölçekleri (rs=0,6-0,8), MAF (rs=0,7) ve HAQ skalasının alt komponentleri olan özürlülük (rs=0,5) ve görsel analog ölçeği (rs=0,6-0,7) arasında ortagüçlü bir korelasyon mevcuttu. Anketin iç tutarlılığı (Cronbach’s alfa) 0,98, düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonları >0,40 ve toplam puan için 0,947 sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı=0,947, %95 güven aralığı, 0,817-0,985) idi. Sonuç: PHQ-8’in Türkçe versiyonu, tatmin edici geçerlilik ve yeterli güvenilirlik ile SSc’li hastaları değerlendirmek için kullanılabilir.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Furue M, Mitoma C, Mitoma H, et al. Pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis-current conceptand emerging treatments. Immunol Res 2017;65:790-7.
- 2. Hussein H, Lee P, Chau C, Johnson SR. The effect of male sex on survival in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol 2014;41:2193-200.
- 3. Orlandi M, Barsotti S, Lepri G, et al. One year in review 2018: systemic sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2018;113:3-23.
- 4. Leon L, Abasolo L, Redondo M, et al. Negative affect in systemicsclerosis. Rheumatol Int 2014;34:597-604.
- 5. Panopoulos S, Tektonidou M, Drosos AA, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities insystemic sclerosis versus rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative, multicenter, matched-cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2018;20:267.
- 6. Thombs BD, Van Lankveld W, Bassel M, et al. Psychological health and well-being insystemic sclerosis: state of the science and consensus research agenda. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:1181-9.
- 7. Thombs BD, Kwakkenbos L, Levis AW, Benedetti A. Addressing overestimation of the prevalence of depression basedon self-report screening questionnaires. CMAJ 2018;190:E44-E49.
- 8. Nguyen C, Ranque B, Baubet T, et al; Groupe Français de Recherche sur la Sclérodermie. Clinical, functional and health-related quality of life correlates of clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional survey. PLoS One 2014;9:e90484.
- 9. March C, Huscher D, Preis E, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and assessment of depressive symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arch Rheumatol 2019;34:253-261.
- 10. Brunger M, Spyra K. Prevalence of comorbid depressive symptoms in rehabilitation: a cross-indication, nationwideobservational study. J Rehabil Med 2016;48:903-8.
- 11. Arthurs E, Steele RJ, Hudson M, Baron M, Thombs BD; (CSRG) Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Are scores on English and French versions of the PHQ-9 comparable? An assessment of differential item functioning. PLoS One 2012;7:e52028.
- 12. Milette K, Hudson M, Baron M, Thombs BD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Comparison of the PHQ-9 and CES-D depression scales in systemic sclerosis: internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and clinical correlates. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:789-96.
- 13. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Lowe B. The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptomscales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010;32:345-59.
- 14. Palfreyman S. Patient-reported outcome measures and how they are used. Nurs Older People.2011;23:31-6.
- 15. Razykov I, Hudson M, Baron M, Thombs BD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to assess suicide risk in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2013;65:753-8.
- 16. Adler M, Hetta J, Isacsson G, Brodin U. An item response theory evaluation of three depression assessment instruments ina clinical sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:84.
- 17. Hansson M, Chotai J, Nordstöm A, Bodlund O. Comparison of two self-rating scales to detect depression: HADS and PHQ-9. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:283-8.
- 18. Reich H, Rief W, Brähler E, Mewes R. Cross-cultural validation of the German and Turkish versions of the PHQ-9: an IRT approach. BMC Psychol 2018;6:26.
- 19. Mattsson M, Sandqvist G, Hesselstrand R, Nordin A, Boström C. Validity and reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 in Swedish for individuals with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatol Int 2020;40:1675-87.
- 20. Van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemicsclerosis: an American College of Rheumatology/European League against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2737-47.
- 21. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res 2018;27:1171-9.
- 22. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:730-5.
- 23. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137-45.
- 24. Steen VD, Medsger TA. The value of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and special patient-generated scales to demonstrate change in systemic sclerosis patients over time. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1984-91.
- 25. Hesselstrand R, Nilsson JA, Sandqvist G. Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Cochin Hand Function Scale in patients with systemic sclerosis. Scand J Rheumatol 2013;42:317-24.
- 26. Sandqvist G, Archenholtz B, Scheja A, Hesselstrand R. The Swedish version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) in systemic sclerosis: reproducibility and correlations to other fatigue instruments. Scand J Rheumatol 2011;40:493-4.
- 27. Orwelius L, Nilsson M, Nilsson E, et al. The Swedish RAND-36 Health Survey - reliability and responsiveness assessed in patient populations using Svensson’s method for paired ordinal data. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2017;2:4.
- 28. Danieli E, Airo P, Bettoni L, et al. Health-related quality of life measured by theShort Form 36 (SF-36) in systemic sclerosis: correlations with indexes of disease activity and severity, disability, and depressivesymptoms. Clin Rheumatol 2005;24:48-54.
- 29. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018;27:1147-57.
- 30. Ferketich S. Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Res Nurs Health 1991;14:165-8.
- 31. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-63.
- 32. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018;18:91-3.
- 33. Basta F, Afeltra A, Margiotta DPE. Fatigue in systemic sclerosis: a systematic review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2018;36:150-60.
- 34. Sandusky SB, McGuire L, Smith MT, Wigley FM, Haythornthwaite JA. Fatigue: an overlooked determinant of physical function in scleroderma. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48:165-9.
- 35. Leavens A, Patten SB, Hudson M, Baron M, Thombs BD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Influence of somaticsymptoms on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression scores among patients with systemic sclerosis compared to a healthy general population sample. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64:1195-201.
- 36. Wafki F, Amine B, Ibn Yacoub Y, et al. Depression among the Moroccan systemic sclerosis. Clin Rheumatol 2012;31:73-7.
| APA | KAYMAZ S, KARASU U, alkan h, çobankara v (2021). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. , 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| Chicago | KAYMAZ SERDAR,KARASU UGUR,alkan hakan,çobankara veli Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. (2021): 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| MLA | KAYMAZ SERDAR,KARASU UGUR,alkan hakan,çobankara veli Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. , 2021, ss.66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| AMA | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. . 2021; 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| Vancouver | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. . 2021; 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| IEEE | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis." , ss.66 - 72, 2021. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| ISNAD | KAYMAZ, SERDAR vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis". (2021), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| APA | KAYMAZ S, KARASU U, alkan h, çobankara v (2021). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi, 13(2), 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| Chicago | KAYMAZ SERDAR,KARASU UGUR,alkan hakan,çobankara veli Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi 13, no.2 (2021): 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| MLA | KAYMAZ SERDAR,KARASU UGUR,alkan hakan,çobankara veli Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi, vol.13, no.2, 2021, ss.66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| AMA | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi. 2021; 13(2): 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| Vancouver | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis. Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi. 2021; 13(2): 66 - 72. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| IEEE | KAYMAZ S,KARASU U,alkan h,çobankara v "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis." Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi, 13, ss.66 - 72, 2021. 10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
| ISNAD | KAYMAZ, SERDAR vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 for patients with systemic sclerosis". Ulusal Romatoloji Dergisi 13/2 (2021), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.4274/raed.galenos.2021.21931 |
